Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber invigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    20 Aug '14 19:22
    Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the US decided regime change was a good idea.

    Killed lots Iraqii's made quite a lot of enemies.

    Then left an ineffective government to create a vacuum, so that Islamic Fundamentalists could fill the void and create a hardcore Islamic State.

    Solving this one could be a lot harder!
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    20 Aug '14 19:50
    Originally posted by invigorate
    Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the US decided regime change was a good idea.

    Killed lots Iraqii's made quite a lot of enemies.

    Then left an ineffective government to create a vacuum, so that Islamic Fundamentalists could fill the void and create a hardcore Islamic State.

    Solving this one could be a lot harder!
    ISIS is a minor regional power and ultimately insignificant. Hardcore devotion and a warrior spirit only go so far.

    How responsible is the US? Not very.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    20 Aug '14 19:53
    The U.S. is responsible for ISIS; had the U.S. not invaded Iraq, Saddam would be doing the same thing ISIS is to his own people.
  4. 20 Aug '14 20:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by invigorate
    Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the US decided regime change was a good idea.

    Killed lots Iraqii's made quite a lot of enemies.

    Then left an ineffective government to create a vacuum, so that Islamic Fundamentalists could fill the void and create a hardcore Islamic State.

    Solving this one could be a lot harder!
    While the USA's toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq created a 'power
    vacuum' that has led to great (pre-ISIS) sectarian bloodshed, I would say
    that the recent emergence of ISIS as a regional power depended on some
    factors that could not be reasonably foreseen when the USA invaded Iraq.
    A major factor is the protracted civil war in Syria.

    Also, don't stereotype all 'Islamic Fundamentalists' as exactly alike.
    ISIS apparently aims at a Sunni 'Islamic state' that's quite different from
    the Shia-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran.
  5. Subscriber invigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    20 Aug '14 20:27
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    While the USA's toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq created a 'power
    vacuum' that has led to great (pre-ISIS) sectarian bloodshed, I would say
    that the recent emergence of ISIS as a regional power depended on some
    factors that could not be reasonably foreseen when the USA invaded Iraq.
    A major factor is the protracted civil war in Syria.

    Al ...[text shortened]... at a Sunni 'Islamic state' that's quite different from
    the Shia-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran.
    I'm not suggesting that all Islamic Fundamentalists are alike.

    The civil war in Syria, is a factor. But the lack of clear governance in Iraq has allowed ISIS to spread.

    I'm sure that in this country (UK), our actions in Iraq radicalised many Muslims. Therefore if we achieved that in the UK, what will have been achieved in Iraq? Where we killed thousands of innocents?

    Religious hatred is obnoxious, but US/UK's actions in Iraq only added fuel to the fire!
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Aug '14 00:54
    Originally posted by invigorate
    Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the US decided regime change was a good idea.

    Killed lots Iraqii's made quite a lot of enemies.

    Then left an ineffective government to create a vacuum, so that Islamic Fundamentalists could fill the void and create a hardcore Islamic State.

    Solving this one could be a lot harder!
    If you wish to place responsibility, it should not be placed on the US as a whole, but you might place much of it on the Obama administration's foreign policy.
  7. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    21 Aug '14 02:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    If you wish to place responsibility, it should not be placed on the US as a whole, but you might place much of it on the Obama administration's foreign policy.
    I know you see things on a grander scale than the rest of us, but minor points of detail are important: it was George Dublyah Bush who was the President responsible for the invasion of Iraq. Had Sadam still been in power ISIS would not exist.
  8. 21 Aug '14 02:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    ISIS is a minor regional power and ultimately insignificant. Hardcore devotion and a warrior spirit only go so far.

    How responsible is the US? Not very.
    Who just looted billions from banks, took arms, possibly WMD's, and now threaten to take over the entire country.
  9. 21 Aug '14 02:36
    Originally posted by invigorate
    Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the US decided regime change was a good idea.

    Killed lots Iraqii's made quite a lot of enemies.

    Then left an ineffective government to create a vacuum, so that Islamic Fundamentalists could fill the void and create a hardcore Islamic State.

    Solving this one could be a lot harder!
    That's nothing, wait till the US pulls out of Afghanistan.

    It's like Libya. The US takes over, creates a vacuum, and creates chaos and a killing field as they watch their ambassadors get murdered.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Aug '14 03:38
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I know you see things on a grander scale than the rest of us, but minor points of detail are important: it was George Dublyah Bush who was the President responsible for the invasion of Iraq. Had Sadam still been in power ISIS would not exist.
    It is true that the Bush administration made a mistake by not dividing Iraq in three governments. However, Barack Hussein Obama was responsible for pulling the US military out of Iraq before it was ready to govern on its own.

    The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) used to have a different name: al Qaeda in Iraq.

    US troops and allied Sunni militias defeated al Qaeda in Iraq during the post-2006 "surge" — but it didn't destroy them. The US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, described the group in 2010 as down but "fundamentally the same." In 2011, the group rebooted. ISIS successfully freed a number of prisoners held by the Iraqi government and, slowly but surely, began rebuilding their strength.

    ISIS and al-Qaeda divorced in February 2014. "Over the years, there have been many signs that the relationship between al Qaeda Central (AQC) and the group's strongest, most unruly franchise was strained," Barack Mendelsohn, a political scientist at Haverford College, writes. Their relationship "had always been more a matter of mutual interests than of shared ideology."

    According to Mendelsohn, Syria pushed that relationship to the breaking point. ISIS claimed that it controlled Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda splinter in Syria, and defied orders from al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to back off. "This was the first time a leader of an al-Qaeda franchise had publicly disobeyed" a movement leader, he says. ISIS also defied repeated orders to kill fewer civilians in Syria, and the tensions led to al-Qaeda disavowing any connection with ISIS in a February communiqué.

    Today, ISIS and al-Qaeda compete for influence over Islamist extremist groups around the world. Some experts believe ISIS may overtake al-Qaeda as the most influential group in this area globally.


    http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know
  11. 21 Aug '14 07:44
    Originally posted by invigorate
    Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but the US decided regime change was a good idea.

    Killed lots Iraqii's made quite a lot of enemies.

    Then left an ineffective government to create a vacuum, so that Islamic Fundamentalists could fill the void and create a hardcore Islamic State.

    Solving this one could be a lot harder!
    US needs to do business with Assad but that means eating a lot of empty rhetoric from the past. Is the US responsible, yes, in part, they left an ineffective and essentially destroyed military unable to cope and still without any real air force.
  12. Standard member redbadger
    Suzzie says Badger
    21 Aug '14 14:31
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    US needs to do business with Assad but that means eating a lot of empty rhetoric from the past. Is the US responsible, yes, in part, they left an ineffective and essentially destroyed military unable to cope and still without any real air force.
    we should have left the middle east to sort its own problems simplze
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Aug '14 14:39
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    US needs to do business with Assad but that means eating a lot of empty rhetoric from the past. Is the US responsible, yes, in part, they left an ineffective and essentially destroyed military unable to cope and still without any real air force.
    Maybe it is the UK and Scotland that is to blame for not going in to fill the void left by the Americans. Maybe the Netherlands, France, and Germany should have done something other than sticking their heads up their asses.
  14. Standard member redbadger
    Suzzie says Badger
    21 Aug '14 14:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Maybe it is the UK and Scotland that is to blame for not going in to fill the void left by the Americans. Maybe the Netherlands, France, and Germany should have done something other than sticking their heads up their asses.
    maybe we should have kept out of other countries problems we gung ho'ed into Iraq without a nato agreement we committed war crimes(weapons of mass illusion)
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    21 Aug '14 15:50
    Originally posted by redbadger
    maybe we should have kept out of other countries problems we gung ho'ed into Iraq without a nato agreement we committed war crimes(weapons of mass illusion)
    What do you mean "without a NATO agreement". We had a NATO agreement when we were attacked on September 11, 2011.

    Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks, after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked four times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War, twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria and in 2014 by Poland following the Russian intervention in Crimea.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO